On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion, over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks ago, received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting and has a lot of unaddressed issues.
I feel that if the authors had chosen to focus their presentation on their new draft, rather than splitting their time slot with Trust Expressions, there would have been much more time for discussion at the end of the meeting.
As I noted, many participants in the meeting expressed a preference for an interim so I would be surprised if there was support for adoption. Especially as the concerns I want to present are fundamental to the design rather than about issues which could be addressed later.
However, I'm sure the chairs will gauge how close we are to a rough consensus on adoption based on their own conversations with the other WG participants.
PQ TLS on the other hand has a lot of open questions about things like different variants of Merkle Tree Certificates that I would love to flesh out further. If we want an interim, we should focus on that question, and leave trust anchors out of the discussion, in my opinion, moving them towards adoption instead of drawing out the process even longer.
I agree the scope of PQ TLS is much wider and will also need some substantial time to discuss. I think the first job will be figuring out problems we're trying to solve and our requirements, but I'm excited to talk about the different variants of MTC as well.
Best, Dennis _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
